I'd have to disagree with that. To quote Steve Blank himselve, no software ever fails because it can't be build. You can build whatever software you want. Software companies fail because they can't generate cash.
> To quote Steve Blank himselve, no software ever fails because it can't be build. You can build whatever software you want.
Bullshit. Budget and schedule overruns are endemic to the software industry. There are plenty of companies that fail because they can't deliver on the technology they promised.
Don't get complacent though, Chris :). Technology is leverage and those who wield it (i.e. those closer to where the rubber meets the road) will have the potential to stay ahead of the game on average... though most will choose not to employ it.
Engineers can typically simply stay on-par with changing technology and in-effect be moving up market. What is changing fortunes right now is that innovation has stalled in software, and everyone is simultaneously catching up to the early innovators.
Once the market shifts to another platform/technology/methodology, we'll be kicking your ass again... by default. :).
That said, I'd love to have a gutsy sales guy in my corner as a mentor. Drop me a PM.
>> The pendulum is swinging back from technical implementation, back through design, and the power is returning to sales and marketing, IMO.
> !00% Agree.
Disagree 100%. No matter the "pendulum" there are different motivations from sales to marketing to engineering and there is no one answer. Anyone who says "sales is the answer" is either in a very specialized software market or is selling snake oil. Any good sales person knows this. Even average sales people know this. Bad salespeople apparently don't.
I don't think you should apologize. Sales does cure all. If your sales people can sell a thirsty man water living next to a fresh water lake, kudos, they're great sales people! But software is not that easily sold (at least not since the 90's, or not since the early days of iOS in the consumer market).
But the problem is that "sales as strategy" as posed by the OP is most likely short-sighted due to "sales person motivations" , i.e. sales this quarter that affect my bottom line. These types of sales tend to drive one customer's needs versus the customer base. Not always, but that's where product management and engineering can provide a valuable perspective.
And all of that depends on your targets. If 400K is big money for you, go for it. But 400k is probably only big in the context of one or two people.
No..you aren't talking about one specific time..or at least your article isn't. If that were the case than you'd be talking about why salespeople aren't STARTING companies rather than asking why they aren't RUNNING companies.
Without a talented engineering team, a product won't be able to change or adapt to customers changing needs and opinions.
Sure you can sell a product that isn't fully developed, and outsource your engineering but in all likelihood you're going to wind up with a clusterfuck of a codebase and so much technical debt that your customers aren't ever going to see anything more than the crappy first iteration of a product.
This is all just so silly. By your logic all that is important is that you have salespeople that can sell anything, including a crap product. Is that really how you want to drive a company? Salespeople would have an easier time selling a well engineered and functioning product no?
Some people are different. For example - I work a $10/hr part-time job for bills.
I could get a programming job since I have a CS degree and a few years development experience... but instead I choose to work a non-programming part-time job while coding my startup. I've been coding it for 6 months without showing anyone my demo. (it's a big project)
If I get investors this summer or not... I'm committed to "my vision" for the next 3 years. Bills aren't too hard to pay if you live minimally. (e.g. I don't own a cellphone)
"We act as though comfort and luxury were the chief requirements of life. All that we need to make us happy is something to be enthusiastic about." - Albert Einstein
"Bills to pay" or whatever your motivation is, does not mean that's the best way to drive business in a software company. Sales is a required part of business and one driver of how products are developed, but if sales were the only driver of how products are developed, products would be one dimensional pretty quickly with tactical "if you do this, I can make this one sale" types of development features. You still need a robust product management team that is (hopefully) looking beyond current sales needs.
Note, that's not always engineering, but sometimes it's hard to get product management looking beyond current sales needs, and therefore it does fall on engineering to do the strategic work.
IMO, it doesn't matter who does the strategic work, sales, product management, or engineering, as long as someone is doing it.
I have bills to pay too, but I try very hard to prevent them from being the motivating factor in my life. If I am living to pay my bills, then I am living my life in a wrong fashion. Creation is one of the most important and fulfilling activities that I know. Pursuing that activity for the sole purpose of paying bills seems to me such a great perversion that I would rather not create at all. Being paid for my work is fine and good, but working only for the sake of being paid? No. I would rather be poor.
(I imagine that this may be perceived as an extreme stance. To that I can only say: “It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” - Jiddu Krishnamurti)
Agreed, all software companies are different. There is also a huge distinction between software-to-software sales (where the product design is more important) and software-to-outside-world sales. Most of our customers pay with CHECKS, yes, checks. They aren't software people so the design doesn't need to as good in the beginning.
To a certain extent, there is a lot in common in the software industry whether you're selling to the consumer market, the enterprise market or the smb market.
>> There is also a huge distinction between software-to-software sales (where the product design is more important) and software-to-outside-world sales.
I'm not 100% sure I understand, are you talking about consumer software (software-to-outside-world) and enterprise software (software-to-software sales)?
Because marketing can be different, agreed, but development of the product is not that different. Unless you're trying to talk about internal apps vs. products ?
>> Most of our customers pay with CHECKS, yes, checks. They aren't software people so the design doesn't need to as good in the beginning.
Not sure how someone pays for software matters, care to explain?
Sorry, but you don't seem to really understand software product development, neither from the sales side, the marketing side, nor the engineering side. Not from the post itself nor from your comments. But I guess you say that up front so "it's ok" ... ? ... I guess?
I disagree. "Lean startup" (I've only skimmed, not read) is all about teaching coders to sell. Correct me if I'm wrong, no code should be written unless there is market demand.
The challenge is not selling ONCE you have a solid product, it's going from NOTHING to something.
I've read Lean Startup and followed ER's work since he was doing the start up lessons learned blog. However he doesn't advocate salespersons as founders and CEOs, he advocates for a set of principles and practices which allow startup founders to test products in the market. This isn't the same thing.
> The challenge is not selling ONCE you have a solid product, it's going from NOTHING to something.
That kind of mentality is exactly how we ended up with the dot-com bubble. For a couple years, everyone who wanted to got from nothing to something. Remind me what happened next?
First, if you haven't read it, how do you know what it's about??
Second, did you skim over anything about the build-measure-learn loop? If so, let's say that you have an idea, build a first (completely fake) version, and get it in front of people. The next step would be to build something that works, right? If you're completely non-technical, how do you find people to take you to that step (and to do it elegantly enough that you can not only learn, but build on top of what you have learned)?
The point is that unless someone is paying your bills, you need to charge from the very beginning. It's supply/demand equation - your goal from the beginning should be to determine the demand, make sales, and fill the need with your offering.
I just can't imagine how a wholly non-technical salesperson could go from validating there is a demand to actually fulfilling the demand without either finding a technical co-founder, becoming technical or else winning the freelance lottery.
Sometimes vision goes beyond what the market currently demands and changes the dynamics of the market. So "no code should be written unless there is market demand" seems a bit short-sighted to me. If you're a visionary, you're seeing beyond what the market demands.
Hey Guys, My name is Chris Williams. I wrote the post :) If anyone wants to connect, I would love to. My email is chris@cammpus.com
My buddy just let me know that this post was picked up ~6 month late.
I'm looking forward to addressing everyone's comments.
The reason I'm qualified to talk about this is because I started a software company and have grown it to ~$400k in revenue and profitable in 18 months. Why? Largely, not listening to "startup" advice, and SELLING. It's key that this is a B2B company not selling to other software people (B2C and software-to-software sales are much different than B2B and software-to-outside-world sales)
Again, I'm my intent is not to insult the software industry, just say the most of the advice seems incomplete from my perspective.
Chris Williams here, I wrote the article :) The reason that I feel I can provide advice is because I started a software company that has been profitable every step of the way, and now have ~400k in revenue in year 1.
The fact that I did not come from the software industry was A HUGE advantage, because most of the advice given is horrible.
I suppose that listening to a sales person can get you 400k revenue in a year, just rote following what one customer says can do that for you, but is 400k really worth sacrificing more visionary goals? The question that really has to be asked is "if I spend X amount of time on this one feature and that leads to Y amount of revenue, is that worth sacrificing Z revenue down the road on an engineering/product management defined feature that is more strategic? Don't necessarily sacrifice the sale of now for the lost sale of the future.
